Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  February 10, 2012 7:00am-9:00am EST

7:00 am
this morning we're going to talk
7:01 am
an announcement long awaited from the pentagon about women and rules for combat. what the pentagon said and didn't say about the roles for women. should the military be permitted on the front line? here are the phone lines. a good friday morning to you. a little bit of reporting from the announcement which was described as long-awaited yesterday for combat roles for women in the u.s. military. "boston times" gives it lead coverage. the pentagon will keep women off of the front lines is the way they wrote the story. will open 14,000 support positions. william scarborough wrote the piece. they keerping the ban on special ones warriors and ground combat
7:02 am
units but will open 14,000 support positions for them in units closer to the front lines. this codifies what's been happening on the ground in iraq and afghanistan. the afternoon news conference pressed officials to explain why leon panetta opted to continue the ban. let's listen to this press conference yesterday. this is george little, the pentagon spokesperson. >> 14,000 additional positions will all be open to women across the force. secretary panetta strongly supports these changes. he recognizes that over the last decade of war, women have contributed in many ways to the military's mission. they have put their lives on the line to defend the country, demonstrated courage, patriotism, and skill. they have proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles on and off the battlefield, and this will allow
7:03 am
them to accomplish even more. as we make this announcement, i would like to say that secretary panetta beliefs this is the beginning, not the end of a process. we'll continue to review requirements and determine what additional positions may be open to women. >> announcing the change for some the roles opening up 14,000 support jobs on the front line, fwhout allowing women in the infantry. here's some more press coverage of it. this is "the new york times." this morning, the pentagon allows women closer to combat but not close enough for. so this piece reflects it steady but glacial evolution of women in war. the pentagon took a small step announcing that women would be included in the crucial and dangerous jobs closer to the front lines but stop short of officially allowing women to serve in combat. a year-long review ordered by
7:04 am
congress allows women to be permanently assigned to a battalion, a ground unit of some 800 personnel, as radio operator, medics, tank, mechanic, and other critical jobs. women already serve in many of these jobs but as temporary attachment, a bureaucratic side step that has been necessary for the high demand for troops during the last decade of war in iraq and afghanistan. new rules in place for the women in infantry and the special tank units. nonetheless, many women in iraq and afghanistan have served in combat as attachments to infantry, foot patrol, and many cases they have come under fire and fought back. should the ban continue for women in the front line, what are the arguments for and against? we'd like to hear for you. we have a line set aside for women in active duty and veterans to tell us your own story. 202-628-1004. that number is it going to go on
7:05 am
the screen for you. women in active duty and women veterans to tell us your story on the frontlines in the military. you can tweet us and you can send us a facebook posting and, as a matter of fact, this has been on facebook overnight on our page but show you one of the comments as we begin here. i wonder why any woman would want to go on cam bat and infantry as long as it does not force myself or my daughter to be forced into draft eligibility, hey, whatever floats your boat. just make sure you're making equal money to the boys. john, an independent, you're on the air. thank you. >> good morning. i totally think the pentagon is being hypocritical here. if women are going to serve in the military, they should be able to, just as men, as a former veteran myself, they should be able to fight in combat positions, support or
7:06 am
combat. if any female or male service member can do the job, they should be in the positions. whether they're in the tank or in the support role, it's hypocritical for the pentagon to say they can only do support functions. they should be able to be in combat positions. that's what their career needs to have happen in order to develop their careers regardless of men or women. the pentagon is being hypocritical. i support women's roles in combat, support of whatever role they choose to be in. >> colorado spring, richard, a republican. good morning, sir, you're on the air. >> caller: yes, in 2009, politico reported on a soldier's load and a motorman can have to carry up to 142 pounds when you have their protective vest on, their rifle, mortar rounds, stuff like that. inthink if you're going to talk about this, i think you should
7:07 am
be suited up just like somebody in combat should be and show how feasible it is for women to actually move and fight, you know, if they're going to be trying to carry what's the required load. it's pretty ridiculous. a lot of women that weigh much more than 142 pounds and have the strength to do it. so get somebody who can't move, can't help anybody. if somebody got wounded, they couldn't carry them out of combat. you've got a useless body there on the field. >> richard from colorado springs. similar sentiment by bill beatty on twitter. strength, physical conditioning to endure fatigue is the question which is being politically adjusted to meet political goals. that's the view about the pentagon announcement. the new rules are to take effect gradually and will be review bid members of congress.
7:08 am
congress has balked allowing women in combat and has in recent years asking the pentagon sharp questions when it becomes obvious through news reports that women were serving in come back in iraq and afghanistan. in the meantime, a number of advocator if for women in the military acted with dismay. some that acknowledge that the women might be strong enough for the military had some psychological barriers. i have think infantry in me will have a very hard time ever accepting that i'm going to rush against the enemy and there's going to be a female right next to me. captain scott cuomo, a strong supporter of women in the military said in an interview in 2010. can she do it? some might. i don't know if it sounds bad, but i kind of look at everything through my wife. is that my wife's job? no, i make sure my wife is safe. john on the independent line, good morning, john.
7:09 am
>> caller: how you doing? you got to be kidding me? you see the female species of any species, the insect, the spider kills a male after she's finished with him. how about the lion -- the female lions do the hunting. not the male lions. they sit around and god knows what they do. and hell hath no fury as a woman scorned. a bull is naturally playful, but a mad cow, stay out of its way. i tell you, the most dangerous creatures on this earth. >> so for all of the biological reasons you cite, you say yes to women in combat roles? >> caller: damn right. they're the most deadliest animal on this earth. >> from new cap data, maine. on facebook, someone writes women pay in significant situations where there are
7:10 am
legitimate combat threat etc. the fact they're not officially recognized as doing so is just bookkeeping. with a basis in archaic views on gender and policy ought to change to reflect reality. this is a phone call from new york. good morning to monica, republican, you're on the air. >> good morning, i'm the mother of a son and a daughter. if i know my son gets drafted, i know my daughter can do the job. i think the pentagon is sexist in this regard. there are strong women leaders and fighters. if we want equal rights, we need equal rights and put gender aside. >> thank you, from new york. from "the washington post," this is on the politics and the nation page, their coverage of the pentagon announcement yesterday. pentagon to ease ban on women in some combat roles. despite pressure, many ground jobs remain offlimits is their sub head, this is craig whitlock's lease. the pentagon will maintain the ban on ground units despite
7:11 am
pressure from lawmakers and female veterans who call the restrictions outdated after a decade of war. we have a line set aside for women who are in the military who are veterans who would like to tell us a little bit about your own experience with this and what your preponderance is on advancing the policy so women would be on the front lines. pentagon opening 14,000 jobs. the services most affected, army, navy. marine corps. not many jobs opening up. the air force, as you saw, already 99% of the positions are open to women. jan ness on twitter writes to us. i think it's societal that women should not be in the combat roles. think about the cops in your town. it comes down to training. michael, independent, good morning, sir, you're on the air. >> thanks for taking my call. i'm really upset about this. i can't believe this. the only reason they're doing this including accepting gays is
7:12 am
because we don't have a draft to put women in the military. after the film at the film festival about all of the rapes that are happening to our own women? and -- are we really -- are we a just society? this is crazy. the only reasons they're wanting women or anybody is because we don't have a draft. they were taking people who are ex-felons, any criminals around this area who wanted to join the military because we don't have a draft. and this is so upsetting to me. this is not advancement. this is not being forward. this is -- i can't believe all of the people calling to support this. >> next up is george.
7:13 am
what's your opinion? >> caller: we have no draft. a lot of men won't go. cheney, five deferments. romney? world war ii, we had plenty of men -- maybe not enough, but we had enough and the women worked in the factories making armor. it's a changing world. but we need to have a draft to stop a lot of wars. thank you very much. >> thank you from kentucky. back to facebook. as a woman, some situations in the military that women should not be part of including special forces groups. to be plain, there's times that women could not be five, six, seven days in the field without moving from that location. i'm all for equality in the military, but lit never be equal. they have different requirements for pt qualifications and
7:14 am
they're designing female specific uniforms so the cut of the uniform fits a female figure. the roles that women have are fine, they are even attached to sf units as contacts for women since it's frowned upon for men to speak to or search a woman of their culture alone. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. we're asking if women should be on the front lines. here's an opinion from laurence core who served as the assistant secretary of defense for manpower in the reagan administration. he's now at the center of american progress, a think tank. military has no more excuses for denying females to do any job for which they're qualified. this is what he writes along with lucy panza. with the recent announcement that australia will allow their soldiers to serve in all combat roles, the united states government is once again confronted with an age-old question, why are american women still denied the chance to serve
7:15 am
their country equally on the basis of their sex. that's the question we're asking you -- should women be permitted on the front lines from the military. next, a call from nashville, tn. this is jack, an independent. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning to you. mine is a conventional wisdom. my position is it's a bad idea only because of the social status. we have a mentality as a society that men feel they need protect the female. you put those people in a combat situation and a male goes down. well, one guy is going to grab him by the xruf of the neck and pull them behind the truck. a female goes down, all of the guys in the area is going to try to protect that female. that's dangerous and counterproductive to a mission. it has less to do with whether
7:16 am
or not a female can do a job, it has to do with changing our perception as a society so we can get to the point where we don't think of it as male or female soldiers, we have one standard and they're soldiers. if they can hold the job at the same level, then i think we'd be good to go. but as it stands, i don't think we're ready, there are too many things we need to change first. >> thanks, from nashville. back to the video from yesterday's annoyancement at the pentagon, you're going hear next from virginia pinrod, deputy assistant secretary for military personnel policy. how about that title? this is a exchange with a reporter at the press conference. >> the current standards that exist for infantry. all men cannot meet those standards and the decision -- if you look at the fourth reason, again, if the majority of women cannot serve in that mos, the service secretary may restrict that mos.
7:17 am
that's based on experience in leadership and combat. i trust that the service leadership understands the standards. if you look at the standards, every mos application has standards. and you probably can help me out with that standard for infantry. so much weight -- >> yeah. >> but it's -- but if you don't -- what about opening up a -- what about giving women the chance -- it wouldn't be that many women. but what if you got ruled out offering women the opportunity to try to serve. >> some of the exchanges with reporters from the pentagon yesterday with the pentagon official. brenda mcdaniel on facebook writes this. women train as hard as men. if they pass the psychological test, they should be able to fight next to their male soldiers. women fight next to them in israel. women should have to understood
7:18 am
go special training. not every woman should enter the military to enter combat. john on the air. go ahead, please, republican. >> caller: yes, ma'am, i would like to point out there's some fallacy about the deal about women fighting in israel. it happened in 1948 and was done away with. if you see women walking around in israel for uzis, they're not infantry man. i'm a 30-year veteran as an army. combat veteran as a 20-year-old infantryman in combat. i can tell you right now in my opinion, this is politically driven, this is not driven by the needs analysis in any way, shape, or form. if it were, it wouldn't be brought up. the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of women and a lot of men cannot carry out the duties that are required. and it was pointed out earlier by someone in the ar-600-201
7:19 am
there are guidelines on all of the requirements for every mos. not everybody can carry out the duties, particularly in the infantry, but i would like to point out again, it's being driven by political correctness. one thing that's not being taken into consideration is that if you cast men and women. i know this from practical experience, into a combat situation where they're living in the field,off ear going to have some problems between the sexes and you cannot take young people, in particular, 18 to 24 years old with raging hormones and tell them to behave. it will not happen. you will have problems and this is entirely driven, i think, by politicians and women who want to advance the military. the purpose of the military is to defend the nation. it's not for anybody's career. and, again, as a 30-year veteran, i served with a lot of women, i serve as an
7:20 am
administrative first chargt in desert storm. we were not in a combat situation. we did not have problems because of that. >> thanks for your calls. craig from new york city. charles who goes by first primary on twitter tweets this -- oh, spare us the males protect female echoes, outdated. tell it to a fighter pilot as she lays a 1,000 pound bomb on you. talk about the pentagon's policy in the front lines announced yesterday they would ease some of the restrictions and open about 14,000 jobs to women bringing them closer to the front lines. on the "daily beast," a writer who covers women's issue, a freelance writer for "newsweek." women in the combat still barred from the front lines. they'll be assigned to the battalions but still barred from front line infantry or
7:21 am
special-ops. something a female veteran would say is too little, too late. we have a line for female veterans. the pentagon issued a long-awaited announcement about the policies excluding women in the military combat role. starting this summer, women will be assigned to the battalions, opening up 14,000 new roles for female service members but still barred from front line infantry and special-op forces. coming a year after two separate advisory boards urged if defense department to overturn the policy all together, many female veterans feel the announcement is too little too late. one called it a slap in the face. a former marine commander who is now the executive director of the servicewomen action network, the promise to overturn the ban is not only sexist but potentially damaging to the military as a whole. next is a call from new york city, craig, a democrat.
7:22 am
good morning, go ahead, please. >> caller: we have police officers who are women who have the ability to use deadly force. we have olympic bench pressers, women who could lift more than i could lift, being a man. we have the example of russia during world war ii, where would they have been without their women service members? so it's a type of forced evolution, but the fact is that you can't deny people if they have the desire to do something and they're willing to put their life on the line, who am i to tell them that they shouldn't serve their country if they have the ability. but as other callers have mentioned, the innate thing for men to protect women. men have to evolve as well as women have to evolve. and eventually, hopefully we'll see no war where we wouldn't need anybody. but thank you very much.
7:23 am
>> thanks so much. after the announcement yesterday at the pentagon, this has made its way to the presidential campaign trail. rick santorum interviewed by john king on this topic. let's listen in to what he had to say. >> i don't -- look, i want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country. and they do so in an amazing and wonderful way. that have e-- they're a great addition and have been for a long time to the armed services for our country. i have concerns about women in frontline combat. that could be a compromising situation where people naturally do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. it already happens in course with the camaraderie of men in combat, but i think it would be more unique if women were in combat. that's probably not in the best interest of men, women, or the mission. >> and, jennifer ruben writes
7:24 am
the right turn column from "the washington post" from the conservative perspective. she be wrote about candidate santorum's comments. he writes, for a candidate with no staff who tends to talk off of the cuff, rick santorum has been nearly gaffe free. the first might be the time. he wants to convince voters that he's more than just, a social conservative. he goes on some social conservatives are not that keen with women in the military but sometimes women work 234 male-dominated jobs. next up, washington, d.c., this is lawrence, and independent. good morning. >> thank you so much for c-span. >> you're welcome. >> caller: my comment is the question itself masks an id logical function that war is necessary to begin with. i feel the same way -- i feel
7:25 am
the same place that women shouldn't be in the military and men shouldn't be in the military. read mark twain's "war prayer" which is available on the we believe and it has a quite good statement on war. >> okay, thank you, lawrence from washington. wendy buckleman writes to us on facebook -- it's volunteer military. to not offer the position is a bad example of what it is we are, allowing the people die fighting for whether official infantry or not. next up, cambridge, maryland, george, republican, good morning to you. >> caller: good morning, susan, thanks for being there. i'm a vietnam veteran. i love serving in vietnam. i had the occasion of being post by female vietcong soldiers. they were adequate and just as awful as their counterparts. >> so do you have any concerns
7:26 am
about engaging in combat that you might not have had with a male opponent? >> caller: you know, being raised the time i was, post world war ii, there was always this male protective thing over the female. it's something you have to consider in situations we were put in in vietnam where we were faced by not only women but children combatants. this is a decision that you have to make. we know that our enemies today, the ones we are most engaged with, the radical islamics, have no qualms about killing women and children. and as long as war is necessary and for the last caller, it is necessary as long as there are those who would deprive us of our freedoms, then every citizen and every country, especially those who espouse and defend
7:27 am
freedom should be train in the art of war and be able to protect theirs and their interest. that's all i have to say, thank you. >> thank you for calling in. we have about 15 more minutes on this. i want to take your cause. i want to mix in a few other stories on topics as i take your calls and read your posts on facebook. next up, frank, an independent, good morning. >> caller: how are you doing? i'm also a vietnam veteran. my unit was a long-range unit. we spent two weeks to two months at a time in the jungle. we carried backpacks that ranged from 50 pounds to 70 pounds on our backs. i, myself, carried a 65-pound rubbing sack and an m-60 machine gun with 100 rounds of ammunition always twisted over me. we crawled around in jungles every day. i can't imagine a woman being able to keep up with males in that type of situation.
7:28 am
now, in a -- >> a question, though, people argue if a woman could, should she have the opportunity? if they pass the physical test? should they have the opportunity? >> caller: if she can pass the physical test, i would say glory be. but i'm going tell you, the physical test that you have to pass to get to that -- that point is pretty extreme. now, in a wide infantry situation where they were light packing and day troopers out for the day, yes, i think there's many women who could be in the infantry, not long-range reconnaissance-type unit. special forces carries more weight sometimes. >> another question. you're making the argument based on physical capabilities. an earlier caller was concerned about discipline with men and women serving side-by-side in combat situations. you have anything on that? >> i think in a combat
7:29 am
situation, if that person is covering your back, you don't care if it's a monkey or a woman. if they can do the job and they can do it well, it doesn't matter. i just don't feel in certain instances, certain infantry groups, they could fit in. we would call them day bangers, out for one day and they were carrying enough equipment for that one day. carrying like 15 pounds. well, they would definitely be able to serve that purpose. >> thanks so much, frank from atlantic inge city. this is the lead story in "the washington post." yesterday the house of representatives passed the stock act, the stop insider training from members of congress and government officials. it's different from the senate. so they're going to have to work out some big differences and lots more to come on that. but in tandem with that, house pal chair bah chus's target of ethics case, allegations of
7:30 am
insider trading are raised. the office 06 congressional ethics is investigating chairman of the house services committee over insider trading laws according to individuals familiar with the case. representative spencer bachus who holds one of the most influential positions in the house has been a frequent trader in capitol hill. the case is the first of its kind involving a member of congress, the article says. you can read more in "the washington post" today. back to our women in combat question. the next is from the beautiful town of kauai in hawaii. you're on the air, good morning. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. >> you're on the air, we're listening. >> caller: okay, thank you. i want to comment on the last two vietnam veterans. my dad, 36 years in the marine
7:31 am
corps, retired. the only thing he could tell me was the only woman that he served with in vietnam was in a clerical position. and that was that time. i want to say that the last few callers, although they differed as vietnam veterans, it's a double edged sword for me. i feel that i wouldn't want a woman to -- i just wouldn't want to see a woman have some -- you know what i mean. i support that. i can't imagine see a woman pass in front of me. >> you mean not in the battlefieldle? you said you couldn't imagine a woman die on the battlefield in
7:32 am
front of you? >> caller: yes, ma'am. they go in the service knowing that that's a fact in reality. as a man, i -- you know, there's a lot of women who are -- they're believing they're tougher than some men and a lot of women have beat out men in boot camp. and i know that for a fact just talking to my dad. but it's a highly emotional thing to talk about it. and i would like to get the impact from your next callers on this. >> thank you very much, calling in the wee hours of the morning from kauai, hawaii. in twitter, dale frazier writes, women are on the ground in ground and ariel roles, why not take the next progression. david tells us that house speaker john boehner in a move
7:33 am
that carries political risk brings the transition bill to the house floor despite the resistance of some conservatives. the bill's measure would be a blow to his leadership. they're scrambling to win support. the debate surrounding the measure shows how the promise along with others who oppose big spending bills can make it harder to govern. the club for growth and heritage action to promise with government groups have attacked the measure, but it's called a remarkably bloated and inefficient piece of legislation. next, a call on women in combat from canton, illinois. good morning, bob. >> good morning, c-span. i had a female army scout, that means they pledged allegiance to the united states after they were captured. she was the most ruthless killer of any of the men i served with.
7:34 am
however, her emotions -- hormone emotions took effect. on a long-term motion, we ended up having sex together. and because of that, she sacrificed her life for me out of emotion and not out of a combat sense. at the time, i was only 19 years old. and i think that you cannot put females and men together at a -- when we're at a young age because of those emotions, those or moan emotions that take effect. it's just not going to work out. and that's my comment. thank you. >> thank you so much. bob, democrat calling us from canton, illinois. next, a michigan caller be i the name of eric who's on the independent line and calling us from armeda, michigan? >> caller: yes. >> good morning to you. >> caller: good morning. i pose a question, i guess, that i served back in the early '80s and there were women in basic training and going through the
7:35 am
same, you know, you learn how to be an infantryman first in the army. then you specialize whatever your career is. but my question is, now that it's all volunteer, yes, you're going to get those women who want to be g.i. jane, but what happens if we have to institute a draft? and we have to draft women into the service. not every woman wants to be in combat. so it becomes a question of, are we willing to let our sisters, our daughters, put -- be put in harm's way, okay? and when we have so many men who physically are more aptitude -- or more apt to be in those combat roles. so that would be my question to
7:36 am
all of the women out there. are they willing to train themselves mentally and physically to be put in that situation if we have the draft? >> okay, thanks so much. here's another facebook comment. wendy buckleman. it sickens me no woman has been in position of first contact in a conflict. she realized the motto, ladies first might have been for the ability to disarm the volatile situation by her presence alone. only a situation without women would tactic as stupid adds shoot the ones who run first, like the situation where the helicopter of the navy seals was taken down a while back. the most likely to run in a terrorizing attack in their villages are the healthy ones who can run. more news stories. "usa today," americans are making more these days. household income up 4% at the end of 2011. and also in "the wall street journal," job market bellwether
7:37 am
strengthens. the number of people applying for jobs each week has fallen steadily and now down to levels not seen since the early months of the recession. a sign that hiring has accelerated. next up, grand prairie, texas. good morning to george. >> caller: good morning, good morning. >> you're on the air, good morning. >> caller: i have not heard from any of the women who are leading this effort? i haven't heard from any women at all. >> it's remarkably -- it's remark blil a male conversation. what's going on? >> caller: they haven't had an opportunity or not taken the opportunity to respond. >> not taking the opportunity because they're certainly welcome and we have a special line for it. so their choice, i guess, george. what do you think about it? >> caller: as long as the military remains voluntary, we won't have any problems. but if it comes selective service or draft, we're going to
7:38 am
have a different set of problems. but i think women can serve -- rightfully so, can serve and can do the jobs they're restricted to jobs that they can handle. >> okay. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. >> thanks for making it, george. we appreciate it. back to the newspapers this, is "wall street journal" front page. roads to nowhere -- the program to win over afghan fails. this is a story -- u.s. taxpayers paid afghan entrepreneur johnny hassan millions of dollars as a plan to win over villages in the country's insurgent heart lands. his seven-mile road construction project went to awry that his security guards opened fire on some of the very villagers he was trying to woo on what have of his american funders. he was a point man and a $400 million u.s. agency for international development
7:39 am
campaign to build as many as 1200 miles of roads in some of afghanistan's most remote and turbulent places. three years, $270 million later, less than 100 miles of gravel road have been completed. 125 people were killed, 250 others were wounded. and insurgent attacks aimed at derailing the project, usaid said. the agency shut down the road-building effort in december. next, richld, women in the military, that's the topic, what do you think? >> caller: yes, good morning, susan. i spent 37 years working with the airports and in the air force. i think women definitely have a role, not in certain combat situations. how many -- i have to look at, you know, my experience on the front line with the fighters and the back seat we had a battery that was up underneath the console and you had to get it
7:40 am
inverted and use your hands and fingers to change the battery. and my whole -- our whole tenure with the aircraft, i had never seen one woman or female that could change that battery. when they get in a tight and dirty situation, they need to have help and we had to put another -- a man with them in order to assist them. also, on the fizz kpal end, -- physical end, there's no argument. how many women do we see in major league football, baseball, basketball. how many navy s.e.a.l. women are there? in those situations? i don't think they can compete. >> thanks for your call. richard from florida. back to the pentagon announcerment yesterday. this is major general gary patton who is a former battalion commander. let's listen in. >> i look at it as a former
7:41 am
infantry battalion commander, inwish i had the opportunity to expand the talent pool. this is intel officer, intel handlers, supply officers, so forth, we're expanding the talent pool so you have all qualified people regardless of gender being able to compete or be assigned to those key positions in infantry battalion. >> from the pentagon announcement yesterday. just a few more minutes with you on the topic of women on the front lines. it is interesting, mostly men callers who are hearing from quite a number of women on facebook and twitter. here's tereasa gonzalez on facebook who writes -- it's time, maybe past time. when i was in the navy, my options were very limited. advancement and promotion are directed to the type of jobs you can and will take. i hate the wars, but was pleased that many, many jobs were open to women that have never been available before. i think if you put on the uniform, you should be willing, able, and allowed to fill all of the positions. right above that, austin walter
7:42 am
who writes i believe the infantry should be comprised of men, not for reasons of the equality, but reasons pertaining to psychology and physical attributes. next up, port ritchie, florida, democrat, you're on. >> caller: yeah, good morning. i believe a woman can do the same thing a man can do in any aspect. i love to watch basketball games. i love to watch some boxing. but we're the kind of people who loved our women. i wouldn't want to see them hurt in war, you know? i always loved them, protected their women. and the way the politicians are today, they don't care who they send. >> thank you so much. one side and then the other in
7:43 am
your argument this morning. mexico makes seizure of pure meth. they seized 15 tons found in pure powder form at a ranch outside of guadalajara. about 13 million doses worth $4 billion more than double the size of all meth seizures at the mexican border in 2011. this story about "the washington post." a grim warning inside mexico. the state department advised americans this week to do the third nonessential travel to vast stretches of mexico warning that 14 of the country's 31 states are so dangerous that visitors should avoid them if at all possible. for four other states it counseled caution or extreme caution. the travel warning is a broader, more detailed, more alarming than the previous one from mexico issued in prim. women in combat our topic. next up, atlanta, jonl, excuse me, you're on the air. go ahead.
7:44 am
>> hi, i'm glad you're taking my call. and my -- you know, in my humble opinion, i think women should not be at the front lines. not to say that they don't have the ability. i don't consider them the weaker sex. i do consider them the fairer sex. and i think the reason why women are in the front lines or in combat, period, is because there's not enough men whob will assume the responsibility. and i think that women normally take the lead when the -- when the men don't. and that's kind of unfortunate because i think if we were able to take our places as men, it would be very little that women, you know, would have to do. because the men are taking the lead and assuming the responsibility. >> okay, thanks. thank you, john. running out of time here. we'll let you go with that
7:45 am
point. gabrielle giffords' aide has announced the intention to seek his boss in a special election. his name is ron barber. and he also was shot and wounded in the same shooting that killed many people and seriously injured then representative gabrielle giffords. next is a call from westminster, california, leo, democrat. >> because we don't have the open phones, inlike to say a couple of things that that i've been trying to get through and talk to you because you're the only one that allows anybody to talk. >> as you're doing this, we ear right at the end of the segment. you have about 30 seconds. >> caller: okay. well, that's okay. i'll call back some other time. >> later on, we have 15 minutes of open phones. why don't you try to get us
7:46 am
then. we'll listen to what you have to say. as we close here, the numbers of "the washington times" story about women in the military and the combat operations, 864 women in the military have been wounded in the hospital and not support missions in iraq and afghanistan. 144 female troops killed. about 20,000 of the 205,000 troops currently deployed are women. 280,000 of the 2.38 million troops ever deployed in support of wars are women. and about 200,000 of the 1.4 million active duty troops currently are women. the discussion with you, the change in the pentagon gets a 30-day review by congress and it will be immaterial -- implemented if approved. thanks for your comments. interesting conversation. later in the program, the senator in wyoming who heads the
7:47 am
policy committee and a doctor part of the negotiations over the extension of the payroll tax cut. and he will be here to talk about how those things stand. they seem like they are in stalemate right now. but next up, we're going be talking about cybersecurity. interesting hearing this week. the house of representatives about the threat to all of us who use on-line and hand held devices. we're going learn more about that from our next guest. the coat is cared for by the
7:48 am
national parks service and periodically display in the ford's theater museum lobby. american history tv documented the process of removing the replica coat and placing the original coat on display for the public and learn how the artifact is preserved for future generations. lincoln's coat on american artifacts. on c-span 3's american history tv. just so we all remember, here is that wonderful moment when senator locke revealed his nostalgia for the state south. >> when strom thurman ran for president, we voted for him. we're proud of him. >> talking points.com publisher josh marshall on the internet and the website's emergence of the breaking news business. >> the world is such a different
7:49 am
place today. things like that happen all the time now. i mean, i know there's certainly many big stories that tpm has had over the last decade more and more. we have an editorial staff of 20 people, we're breaking stories right and left. the thing is it's almost become common place and not nearly as surprising today as it was back then. more about tpm and josh marshall opportunity night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. washington journal continues. meet james lewis. he's based here in washington at the center for strategic international studies. this week, he's part of the panel testifying before a house subcommittee about the threats that abound these days of those who use the internet and hand
7:50 am
held digital devices. he has been involve in this issue. he led an effort called the commission on cybersecurity for the 44th presidency and published the first publication and then in january, 2011, this one, cybersecurity two years later. what is the threat standing for? the average everyday citizen who regularly uses the internet? >> the internet started out as a toy, something for gaming. they did a little e-commerce. but we're in to the fabric of our economy now. so if you go to the gas station or the grocery store, you buy an airline ticket, it's growing in importance. i'm waiting for the day we get internet-based cars. that day is coming soon. >> guess what, you talk, i'll show the story. it's this morning in the paper. so go on. >> so increased dependence. when the technology was created, people didn't expect to become
7:51 am
so central. it's not at all secure. and around the world, you have spies, criminals, armies, who realize, this is a tremendous opportunity for them. and they haven't been slow in taking it. so every year it gets a little more risky for america. and we haven't really done enough to change that. and that's something to look forward to. >> so right now, where -- who's responsible for security? let's say i'm one of those forward-thinking people that uses my hand held device to pay my bills at the gas pump, for example. so with that level of interaction, where's the security coming from? is it my responsibility to put it in. my carrier's, where does it come? >> no one is responsible. some companies do a great job. the credit card companies, the telephone companies, they know it's a problem. they tried. everyone else here is on your own. that makes an easy target if you're a criminal and the internet connects to tens of millions of people you. only have to find a few that
7:52 am
made the mistake. and that almost always happens. so basically no one is in charge. and that's one of the reasons we are increasingly facing big problems. >> so what are some of the criminal activities that we're seeing right now? and where do you fear that it's going? >> well, there's two sets of criminal activities that have really dominated cybersecurity. the first is financial crime. the people go after your bank accounts, they go after your credit card. lots of success, lots of money. we had the sony playstation incident. we had everything from fraud on facebook to just millions of dollars here. and because most of these criminals live outside of the united states, at least the smart one us, they're not caught. so it's a risk-free crime. the second problem, and maybe the bigger problem for the nation, is the theft of intellectual property, what we would call economic espionage or
7:53 am
the theft of confidential business information. the big oil companies get tapped, they lose hundreds of millions of dollars of exploration data to a foreign competitor. this hurts the country. so it's crime and espionage right now. the future might be a little more exciting because clearly it takes a little bit of skill to cause disruption as opposed to crime. but we're seeing the skills proliferate to actors that might not be so reasonable, what happens when jihadies get them. what happens when people who say they're anonymous get them. it will be an exciting time. >> when you mention most of the criminals are outside of the country, when we were talking beforehand, you said the first report of cybersecurity was a best seller in what country? >> beijing. >> beijing, china. what does that tell you? >> two things, first -- three things, actually. three for the price of two. the chinese know their networks are insecure. if you use pirated software,
7:54 am
which most of them do, you're always going to be vulnerable. second, they're afraid this is going to be a problem in the bilateral relationship with the u.s. and the reason they're afraid of that is because they have made extensive use of hacking as a tool for economic espionage. a tool for espionage across the board. and have been successful because we're so ill prepared. when chinese think of cybersecurity, they think it's a real opportunity but they worry it's going to backfire on them. >> before we lose the thought here, "wall street journal" story, marketplace section now. don't look now, a car that tweets. the internet car is pushing automakers to let drivers check facebook, buy movie ticket, and send tweets from the dash boards of their car. more and more ways to be interconnected. we'll leave the driving safety issues for another time. one clip. this is not something that you wrote from another one of those people testifying.
7:55 am
george mcafee, mcafee, you might know folks at home as one of the companies that sells packaged internet protection services to consumers. here is a little bit of what she had to say to the house panel. >> we see mcafee labs 66,000 various pieces of code every day called malware that allow my will to be instructed on your machine. the idea is -- twofold. one is to catch the ip addresses that are spreading across the internet. that go goes through the threat position. i can't forecast the weather without the weather from all of the different states or countries. that comes from the enabling information sharing, but the ability to protect the destruction of doing something it shouldn't do. resilience means i can run even if the enemy gets in. the enemy gets in, the biological analogy is that there's a disease in your body but never hurt you. we have to let them get in, they
7:56 am
will, and be resilient to that. >> that was one of the witnesses at the house committee looking at internet security, this week, for consumers particularly. so was there consensus across the panelists on what washington should or could do to respond to this? >> no. it's a shock. there's no consensus in washington. but people are doing similar things and recognition that what we're doing now isn't working. we have to change. great, we've gotten that far. but when you take the next step and say, we all have to change, what do we change to, it falls apart? it will be a tough year. and this problem is going to be harder to solve. some people would say an election year probably isn't the best year to try to get major legislation. in retrospect, i would agree with them. but we're facing this growing problem. and we will not be able to fix it and take new legislation. >> we're interested in getting you involve in this discussion. many of you regularly
7:57 am
communicate with us by the internet using facebook and twitter. the topic this morning is a growing threat, cybersecurity threat to individuals and whether or not washington should have a role, whether or not it belongs to the commercial community to have the responsibility. how those forces interact together. we like to hear your questions or comments. phone number on the screen, you can send an e-mail pore tweet us as well. our guest, james lewis, will take the call. the senate is working on legislation. data breeches -- they have very soon are working on a cybersecurity reform bill. what are the contours of that legislation? >> there are a number of provisions that are good but not critical. so there's improvement of fiber education. we're going need to improve the workforce. everybody has jobs programs. so that one, not much fighting. there's some emphasis on research and development. another sort of mom and apple
7:58 am
pie kind of thing. nobody says research and development. it's bad. you have something called the federal information security management act, fisma. and there's portions of the bill that revise fisma and kind of out of date. that's good too. but the crux of the matter is the ability to tell critical infrastructure service providers that they need to pick up the game in cybersecurity. there's no real agreement there. there's a big effort to dilute that and to water it down. >> well, talk about why there isn't some emerging consensus? why is this a partisan issue? where do the two sides fall? >> it's a debate you heard just for the last couple of years in washington which is government is the problem. big government needs to get smaller. and regulation is bad. no one disagrees if it's overregulation or restrictive regulation can hurt the economy. but there are some things like
7:59 am
national security and public safety that the markets just aren't going to deliver. we've seen this over and over again. the best way to think about this is how many people would be saying regulation is bad, government needs to get smart, let's get rid of the faa and let the airlines provide for air safety. they try do their best, but you need that additional oversight, you need that additional incentive that comes from regulation. >> coverage of the senate debate at the legislation from the huffington post. draws ire from both sides. here is a bit of what lolita baldour writes in the associated press. the government's ability to regulate the securities. businesses take us too far and security experts believe it should have more teeth. going to start with a tweet from donna who asks you, do any of the anti-virus softwares work 100% or are they all fallible? >> they're better than not having one. if you don't have a firewall, if
8:00 am
you don't have anti-virus software, the statistics suggest that your computer will be taken over within about, oh, two or three minutes when you log on to the internet. so you have to have these things in place. now, are there sophisticated opponents who can beat them? absolutely. but you bring the risk on by using this stuff. and there are freeware versions and for purchase versions. read the reviews, there are good programs. >> you say your computer will be taken over in three minutes, what's happening? . .
8:01 am
guest: this is hard to believe. the european countries are pulling. and official told me we will probably end up doing better than the americans because we do not have the same kind of regulation. currently, everybody is
8:02 am
vulnerable. host: there is a piece this morning. he writes about the potential fracture but in the u.s. and europeans over cloud-based privacy issues. he says -- host: what does that mean? guest: when you look at it, at the end of the cold war, we thought democracy won and we do not have to worry about authoritative regimes any more.
8:03 am
we were wrong. we treasure freedom of speech. we believe in democracy. somehow when it gets into the details, we find ourselves fighting with each other and not with the people who have authoritarian the use. that means we are moving to computing as a service. it started out as a hobby. now, you are going to see it as a service. you just turn on your mobile device. when it becomes a service, the data and processes will be stored somewhere else. host: the next call is from boston. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i have a series of very short questions related to every citizen out there using the internet. what is the threat right now to
8:04 am
a cyber attack, losing your money online or in the banks or a financial institution? like our banks and financial services, if they are susceptible right now. what can i find out about resources online or otherwise about what my rights are? as a citizen in terms of if something like that happens, what the laws r. also, what can i do to protect myself to take pro-active-type choices to put myself at not as much risk. host: thank you. guest: a place to look is the
8:05 am
federal trade commission. they will tell you what your rights are as a consumer. what you can do, as we discussed with the earlier question, you need to have some type of anti virus software. you need to have that fire wall turned on. you need to do with the updating of programs. if you are using windows, for example, it will happen automatically. if you do not patch, you will be hacked. when people do not install them -- we find this all the time. firewall, and have virus, patching, and updating. those are crucial. banks really put a lot of effort into trying to protect their accounts. as we all know, banks are where the money is survey of the primary target. at this point i think for the
8:06 am
average consumer, you need to think about your credit card and your personal data and information and how that is safeguarded. cyber criminals have so many opportunities. they are going to start the top -- they are going to start at the top with the biggest accounts that they can find. i will say one thing which is u.s. law says credit holders are responsible for the first $50 of any illegal charge. host: if someone has illegally tapped your bank account, what is the recourse? guest: to be determined. right now, the banks have been willing to compensate people. they would prefer to make you whole, give you your money back
8:07 am
and then keep a secret. that is a business decision on their part. the levels of this are getting so high that some banks are beginning to think maybe if you were not patching or running a program, maybe i should make you pay some of the costs. as their losses get bigger, you might see an effort to shift it to consumers. host: bill asks on twitter -- guest: probably not. it is a reasonable concern. certainly there are countries where that happens. one of the things that hurt the debated the bill but with the bush administration -- every time you bring this stuff up, it comes back to that. how do i know i can trust you
8:08 am
this time? the answer is of course "trust me" which does not a soul irish people -- which does not assuage people. we are not going to change the constitution. you are not going to lose your rights in this area of. we are so nervous about government monitoring that we have left ourselves very vulnerable. host: our guest, james lewis, has a ph.d. from the university of chicago. he worked for many years, his assignments including regional security, military intervention and insurgency, military space programs, and he is now at the center for strategic and international studies, a think tank here in washington where he serves at -- serves as the director.
8:09 am
very much involved in congress and their debate over cyber security legislation. "fbi hacked while congress ponders cyber security legislation." the next phone call is from a democrat in germantown, tenn essee. caller: good morning. my child went on the internet and some sort of malware began to take over the computer. id indicated there was a problem and you needed to update your account. i began to do that. it mimicked my own malware. i am a banker by profession.
8:10 am
we got to the point where it actually asked me to enter my pin number4 my debit card. host: you got a little suspicious at that point. caller: yes. it had the colors of my bank and everything, but something was suspicious about the page. so i stopped it just short of the internet pin number. we need to check it to make sure everything is ok. i called my bank. they had pulled $99 from my account. they immediately took care of the problem. but i have noticed that whenever i google my bank to go online an d do banking, sometimes i am
8:11 am
sent to that same site, and it is not my bank site. if companies are moving information overseas, we have been more ball honorable to these things happening -- been more vulnerable to these things happening. guest: it would be hard to increase because we are so vulnerable. we have to think about what are the rules for data as it moves from country to country. people do not realize how quickly it moves. the cloud is basically a bunch of computers somewhere. the company shifts this data around depending on what the cost is of storage at that moment.
8:12 am
where the biggest traffic flow is. data in california at 12:00 could be in india two hours later. is going to be a problem. we have not thought through how to regulate that. the other issue is the ease that cyber criminals can impersonate and fool bank accounts. what you experienced was popular for a while, which was the fake anti-virus message. people who did that made millions of dollars. there were a few people in russia, they made millions of dollars off of that scam. you did the right thing. when you go to the website or if it feels uncomfortable, if it says your bank.com, it is
8:13 am
probably the real address. you can look at that. fraud is a growing problem and it is so easy to do. ultimately, we might get technology to fix this but it is not in the cards any time soon. host: here is a tweet. guest: one of the interesting things that has happened is that a few years ago, microsoft did just that. if you were going to work for a company that changed its mind on cyber security, it would be a microsoft. the difference between windows 98 and windows 2007 is incredible. one takes weeks to hack. windows98 took a few hours to hack. we see companies responding to
8:14 am
some kinds of risk. apple has done a pretty good job. the dilemma is you have some of the best computer programmers in the world are criminals so they are going to look for ways to beat those defenses. as a consumer, you may not be their primary target. we have to worry about big institutions, military targets, and critical infrastructure. if you are trying a little bit, you will get that risk under control. host: a viewer asks -- guest: unfortunately, the upgrades are for efficiency. it is called the smart grid. you have built in technologies that were initially very flawed.
8:15 am
i saw things that were hackable 15 years ago being built in. companies are trying to change things. the grid itself is very vulnerable. is connected to the internet and uses old software. there are problems with configuration. that means for an hackers can get in and there is no connection between it and the smart grid. on separate networks, probably not because it is too hard. people talk about that all the time. from a practical point of view, it has never worked in the past. host: this is an e-mail from a regular viewer.
8:16 am
this is from chuck in fla. -- guest: there is a little truth to that. is one of the areas where we might be able to make some progress. 5 think the real vulnerabilities are at the vulnerabilities -- i think the real vulnerabilities of the vulnerabilities that are not advertised that much. they need a lot of work but that is not entirely the explanation of the security problem. host: next is michigan. caller: good morning. i am wondering if you could comment on companies like lifelock and their effectiveness and whether it is worth signing up for some of those things. guest: i do not know that
8:17 am
particular company so i cannot comment on it specifically. there are companies that offer cyber security services. who is your internet service provider? maybe it is a big cable company or local phone company. they have the services that are going to reduce risk for you. my advise would be a first look at what you can get from the people you have a contract with now and then maybe think about some of these additional companies. host: if you are interested in some of the issues being debated in washington, the report that our guest helped to direct are available on the internet. this is the latest cyber security two years later. if you just look for cyber security, 44th presidency, both first and second reports will come up.
8:18 am
next is a call from new jersey. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask a question about remote access. when you have a computer problem, you let another company come into your computer. my concern is my information. on your screen, you see that dayou are giving them access. will there be a point where they will be able to access your computer and you will not be aware of it? guest: people are concerned about advertisers. companies who are coming in to help you are not going to take advantage of that information. companies in the u.s. are going to follow the law and criminals are not. remote access is something you have to think carefully about
8:19 am
and who you give permission to. host: one on our twitter community writes this -- guest: right now, it is not. it is something to pay attention to. it is so easy to hack. it is expensive and a little harder. if we ever manage to get our act together, i think you will have to worry about this. the chinese have exactly the same fears. they say all of our chips come from intel, a california company, and our programs come from microsoft in seattle. so it is a global problem. we need to find a solution. paying attention to the supply chain is one of the big growth areas.
8:20 am
host: this is a question from twitter. guest: yeah. there are two ways to look at this. there is a legitimate software that you buy and have functions that you do not know about that affect your privacy. the ftc and others are working with the companies to roll that back. then there are illegitimate programs that do the same thing and that is a growing problem. one of the stores i thought was always the funniest is every year when the super bowl happens, cyber criminals look for ways to find a way to get malware related to the super bowl onto the internet because you know people will be clicking.
8:21 am
host: the highest ever. guest: if you are sitting over there in street petersburg -- that is right. you had people downloading apps. some of them came from not so friendly places. i worry more about the legal software getting onto your computer and transferring your data. host: sasha tweets in this -- next is christopher in alabama. you're on. welcome. caller: i have a question on cyber security. am i still at risk even if i go to a job application and put in my social security number? guest: you need to look at where you are doing it.
8:22 am
at this point, i will tell you i do not worry about misers vote -- about my social security number. we are just so honorable. host: it is like the least of your worries? guest: if they are going to get your stuff, they are going to get your stuff. host: sobering. you are on the there. caller: hello, c-span. i thank the host. she is one of my favorite hosts. i am a long time viewer and this is my very first call. my question is to the gentlema n. two questions. first is popular web sites like facebook, google. we have heard of them being taken down, but have we ever heard of them being somehow
8:23 am
coerced like some super hacker putting malicious code directly into facebook or twitter into it instead of a normal user clicking on farmville, they are taken to a rogue web site. the second question is is there such thing as a -- i know it is not the best security to have it -- but "a central data base" where rogue web sites are kept track of where all browsers or operating systems will alert a user if they are going to this web site? host: thank you for the call.
8:24 am
guest: most of the anti-virus companies do have data bases of malicious sites, but they will do that for you automatically. it is just too hard to go and manually check. companies getting hacked and getting their websites taken over, it happens a lot. one of the problems we have is it is not a company incentive to go out into the world and admit it because they will lose customers. we do not get a lot of public reporting about it. host: congress is considering this. the senate is drafting legislation and considering it. if you have suggestions for how you would like to go, -- thank
8:25 am
you for being with us. next, we will hear from senator john barrasso. he will take your calls. he is chairman of the republican policy committee and one of the conferees hoping to work out the differences for the payroll tax cut. we will be talking with him about where that stands. he is going to be going later to the cpac. at the break, we are going to look a little bit here and show you what is going on. later, we'll have live coverage when candidates will address conservatives in washington. we will be right back. ♪
8:26 am
>> when i first started the book, i thought this must be an american story. this is about a country that works on individualism. but it turns out we are laggards when it comes to living alone. it is much more common in european nations and is more common in japan. >> eric looks at the growing trend of american adults in choosing to live alone and what that means for the country. saturday night at 10:00 eastern. and the second cousin of condoleezza rice on her work to reduce gang violence in los angeles and starting a dialogue between gang leaders and police. at 8:15, a one-woman play and her book.
8:27 am
every weekend on c-span2. >> fewer than 60 days, effective april 1, 2012, japan will lower its rate to 38%. the u.s. will have the highest corporate tax rate in the entire industrialized world which will make it difficult to attract businesses. >> someone has seemed that the tax law made is like seeing sausage made. you just do not want to see it. >> it is time to work collectively to support and no coherent and equitable tax policy and corporate taxation structure. >> this week, house ways and means took up the future for tax policy and how to encourage investment and job growth by lowering tax rates. follow the discussion online at
8:28 am
the c-span video library. c-span.org/videolibrary. >> "washington journal" continues. host: wyoming senator john barrasso is our next guest. he makes regular stops to the "washington journal" for which we appreciate. he is one of the conferees in the payroll tax cut extension committee who is trying to work out the differences. what is going on? guest: it looks like the democrats have been told not to work together to get a solution. i want to get a solution to extend this payroll tax holiday on working out the issues of unemployment insurance. we need to make sure that doctors are able to continue to take care of medicare payments. host: what is the deadline? guest: february 29 but we would
8:29 am
like to get some things done by this coming week. there is supposed to be a congressional recess. with congress away, you want to be able to get back and visit with those people to get the best solutions. host: are you thinking there could be another short-term extension? guess i do not want a short-term extension. -- guest: i do not want a short- term extension. how does one cut spending elsewhere when we have a $15 trillion debt. a huge deficit of over $1 trillion under the obama economy. to me, that is the key point -- paying for this. host: one is extending the tax break and the other is the debate over unemployment benefits. guest: the unemployment
8:30 am
benefits, absolutely. people in the hardest-hit states can get up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, a check of about $300 a week. how do you get those people best prepared to go back to work? the president called for keeping people in high school until the age of 18 and make sure people get their degree. one of the things the house has passed his people out of work and working on getting their degree. and making sure they are ready to be prepared to go back to work so they are able to pass a drug test in order to go into the workplace. those are the sorts of things that are included. the president says things are getting better, then we should not need to be on unemployment insurance for a full 99 weeks.
8:31 am
host: senator barrasso with us for a half hour so we want to get to your phone calls. you can also tweet and e-mail us. ofre do you see the seds oeds compromise? guest: we need to come down to finding the ways of paying for this by cutting spending elsewhere. a key issue for our seniors, health care is an expensive part of this, too. i want to pay for this as the house has paid for this. salaries and benefits for federal workers. -- freeze salaries and benefits
8:32 am
for federal workers. i think we really need to get this done and do it for the rest of the year. take this off the table and get to the important things to move this country ahead. host: i showed a story from "usa today" that american incomes are up 4%, and we have also had positive news on unemployment numbers. why is an extension needed? guest: i think it should be cut back to a few weeks. host: what about the tax holiday? guest: there have been debates about how effective that is. they have had it for all of last year. if it is about $20 a paycheck, i always have a great deal of confidence letting american people keep more of their hard earned money and make decisions about how they should spend,
8:33 am
save, or invest. it is linked to social security, and we need to be protecting social security for future generations. host: let's begin with new jersey, lisa is a democrat. you are on the air. caller: good morning. the issue of how we are going to finance this payroll tax extension which is essential. the ones that are millionaires, billionaires, and corporations. i am paying a 36% effective tax. i think they should come too. -- that they should, too. let them pay their fair share. during a time of a recession, history has proven it is ninnota
8:34 am
time for austerity. host: let's stop the there. thank you for your call. guest: under this president, we have added $4 trillion to the national debt. we have a failed stimulus program. the national journal coming out today as the cover story of the 51%. 51% of americans pay no federal income taxes. you have that many people not paying anything in income taxes. that has an impact on the 49% who are continuing to pay. i think the president inherited a bad situation and his policies have made it worse. host: here is a headline from "the new york times" this morning --
8:35 am
as the senator said, it is set to expire march 1. if they do not reach a deal, 160 million people could see an increase in their taxes, and 3 million people might lose their jobless benefits according to "the new york times." here is the difference between the two parties. republicans -- did we miss anything? guest: no, i think you have the basis there. the issue is should you be subsidizing warren buffett could
8:36 am
go to medicare? should you be supporting millionaires benefits that they get from the government in terms of medicare which is highly subsidized? i am hearing a lot from seniors saying we need to be able to continue to see dr. it. -- to see doctors. this is the "national journal." harry reid says forget passing bills. he goes on. democrat staffers say they hope the effort harms not only congressional republicans but the gop presidential nominees. their interest in working together to find common ground is not there. i think there are areas where we should be able to find common ground.
8:37 am
i think harry reid is a cheerleader for failure. host: there are no strategic conversations going on on the republican side? guest: i want to accomplish these things. host: a viewer asks -- guest: a number of states have different programs going on. we want to make sure someone is being prepared to go into the workplace. the president has spoken about the value of education. give someone who has that additional education the additional degree. i agree with the president on the. that is why if someone is out of work, to no fault of their own, to have them better prepared for a new place in the workforce is very important. other parts of this have to do with a lot of the regulations
8:38 am
coming out of this administration so parts of the bill that passed the house before the end of the year including the keystone pipeline included ways to get people back to work. it included expensive regulation on industry that would raise the cost of energy on something called boiler mact. host: the next call is from illinois. you're on. caller: i have a couple of comments. one is this tax cut. it is absolutely ridiculous that you would take money already from a broken system. why would you take money from that system that already has no money? the second thing is the unemployment benefit. i just talked to a fellow yesterday. he was a union finisher. i said are you working?
8:39 am
he said he did not want to work because he makes more money on unemployment. make it so wedn't we give them enough money to get by but want to go out and get a job? they make too much money. these people are getting way too much unemployment and for too long. host: thank you for your call. guest: thanks. my dad was a cement finisher. he had to quit school in ninth grade because of the depression and went to world war ii. i think you are right. that is why the republican plan is to reduce the number of weeks from 99 into the 50's. a year of unemployment ought to be enough to say, all right, it
8:40 am
is time to get back to work. i do not think we should go longer periods of time. that is why they moved to almost two years because of the emergency. i am for moving it down to a year where the democrats want to go to two years of unemployment coverage. i think there are opportunities out there for people to get back to work. i want to see this recovery back. that is why i continue to introduce the things to eliminate some of these expensive regulations that our job killers and make it harder for the private sector to create jobs. it is the small businesses and new businesses that create jobs in this country. what they see coming out of washington is making it harder. host: chris van hollen of maryland is also part of this
8:41 am
payroll tax extension conference. he had a news conference yesterday. >> our view is that if we are going to talk about offsetting the cost, and that is fine, you need to look at areas that do not hurt the middle class. that is why we have proposed the surcharge on millionaires. that was a proposal put forward by the democrats in the senate and is supported overwhelmingly by the american people as you indicated. host: here is one person in the public. this is from a librarian who writes -- guest: this is something that has failed four times last year when the senate was asked to vote on it. they did not have the t voteshen. -- have the votes then.
8:42 am
it does not seem to be the place we ought to be looking. we ought to be looking at places where we know there is money and opportunities, and that would be freezing federal pay. you said that salaries are up a little bit in this country. people who work for the federal government, the benefits are better. people for working in the private sector purses people working in washington and for the federal government's of comparable education and background, government workers do a lot better. we still have people all over the country living with wages from 2008. government wages have been up a lot since that time. host: hometown news from wyoming wrote --
8:43 am
what do you think? guest: i am all for it. the president's budget was due by law by last monday but no one has seen it. the president is late and has not done in. -- done it. the democratic-controlled senate did not pass one last year or the year before. harry reid refused to bring it up for a vote last year, so mitch mcconnell offered the present's budget for a vote. zero people voted for the president's budget last year. 97 voted against it.
8:44 am
the press called it an on realistic budgets and irresponsible -- the press called its an unrealistic budget and the responsible. -- and the responsibirresponsib. start with harry reid's office. why don't you bring a budget? states balance their budget. we live within our means in wyoming and balance our budget every year. congress ought to be doing the same thing. i like the idea of. no budget, no pay. families have to live that way. many states do it. it is time for congress to take
8:45 am
that lesson from the rest of america. host: it is a group called "no labels." next is a call from north carolina. daniel is an independent. good morning. caller: my question is we keep talking about the deficit and we are still fighting two wars. week wrapped up the iraq war -- we wrapped up the iraq war. is it not disingenuous to for the wealthy people -- wouldn't it be ok for us to pay a little bit of attacks for the wars that are being fought in afghanistan that are costing us and
8:46 am
affecting the deficit? guest: the numbers are so big that they become a bit overwhelming. the fact that we have been running deficits of over $1 trillion by year every year of his administration. senator casey the other day in our discussion talked about how much money was earned by people in this category of over $1 million a year. if you took every penny that they earned, all of what they earned, and then you sell all of the gold in fort knox, all the money that they have burned and all of the gold in fort knox, that does not even cover the deficit of this country for one year. the numbers are astronomical. we need to get the spending under control.
8:47 am
i think we need a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. i will be talking about that later today. i think that is the only way you can get the fiscal discipline and order. you have to do it in a way that does not mean raising taxes on the people who create jobs in this country. host: "no budget, no pay." guest: that is interest to learn. i think we need a responsible budget. i am not going to vote for something that i do not think is responsible. last year, the president's budget failed because no one thought it was irresponsible. i think that points to the fact that this cannot be a sure raid.
8:48 am
these are serious times for our nation. we cannot continue to have the kind of debt that we have. $15 trillion. since we have been on air, 15 minutes or so, we have borrowed $2 million a minute. 15 minutes, that is $30 million borrowed. $4 billion a day. a lot of it we are borrowing from china. about 40 cents of every dollar that we spend is borrowed money. you cannot continue to do that and be a leading nation in the world. host: a number of people following this. many worried about the senate rules and the filibuster rules. y a 60-vote majority is always needed. guest: the senate rules have
8:49 am
been there since the beginning. the filibuster is used to be 67 votes. it is now at 60. that was put into place by our founding fathers in a way to say that they did not want rush to judgment. they wanted to have time for people to think about things to work together and find solutions on common ground. it seems to make we have been a great nation for a long period of time and we should not change the rules today because one thing or another did not get past. host: houston is out next. go ahead. caller: i would like to make a comment in reference to unemployment. i was recently on unemployment and i did not feel like it was welfare. to be on unemployment, you had to have worked. with the calls saying you get
8:50 am
more money on unemployment, that is incorrect. you get less money. i was laid off in december. i did not sit around and wait for unemployment. i got a job. but you get paid less. i think that we need to restructure how we are speaking about unemployment, because i worked for years and it was nothing that i had done to get laid off. the only way i could get unemployment, the employer had to approve it. i think there are some misconceptions about the way we speak about unemployment. guest: thanks. i think she is right. to no fault of her own, she got out of work and then started to look for work. the question is for how long should the unemployment
8:51 am
continue. right now, it is up to 99 weeks, almost two years. the thought is that is too long. people ought to be given incentives to look for work and make sure they are ready for work. host: "new york times" says -- guest: can you read that about five more times? that is exactly right. host: they sometimes complained about their point of view. public counter offers. are there a serious discussions going on behind closed doors? guest: there have been very few serious discussions behind
8:52 am
closed doors. i would like to have serious discussions wherever. i want to get the unemployment situation resolved and get the tax relief holiday continued and make sure patients can see their doctors and do it in a way that does not add to the deficit or to the debt and puts us further in debt to foreign nations and get people back to work. host: next up is in jordan, a republican in colorado. caller: thank you very much. is there any chance that the leader class start paying taxes? that is the people who make less than $50,000 a year. thank you. guest: i think we need a number of things. we need an across-the-board tax reform.
8:53 am
we need a fairer and flatter tax code. we need to eliminate the loopholes. tax reform nationally would make a huge difference. if you want to raise it -- if you want more tax revenue coming in in washington, the way to do that is that you have more people working. the way to get more people working is to eliminate regulations making it harder for the private sector to create jobs, approved projects that are funded privately like the keystone pipeline which would bring you 20,000 jobs and would give us some security and terms of energy. oil, our closest neighbor can adapt. the prime minister of canada was in china. what was he doing? he was trying to cut deals to sell canadian oil to china.
8:54 am
canada wants to sell it. president obama says we do not want to buy it. china will take it. at the same time, we are more dependent on them having to send money from people that are not necessarily our friends. when things get hot in iran, and they threatened to close down a percentage of the oil, that raises the cost for americans. payments at the pump are significant. there was a story earlier this week that the cost at the gas pump by memorial day will be $4 a gallon. especially here in colorado, people in those states drive long distances and tend to use more gasoline than other places. host: would you have voted for the medicare prescription drug
8:55 am
program? guest: i did not like the medicare prescription drug program. i was an opponent of it when it was passed. host: this comment -- guest: i said that the president added $4 billion -- $4 trillion to the debt in the last couple of years. that is accurate. if you look at what the president is proposing in his budgets, he doubles the debt in five years and triples eight in 10 years. the congressional budget office has come out with its statement and they think the unemployment rate, which is still 8.3%, 36 months in a row over 8%, they
8:56 am
say it is going to go to 9% in 2013. host: next up is vermont. welcome to the program. and independent there. caller: the woman who called earlier who said something about the unemployment, that was a part of my comments that i wanted to make. if people's unemployment is based on what they earn and goes down the longer you are on non -- that you are on unemployment. the other part of it that i want to say and get an answer about is when the way they have tied our economy -- they keep saying our economy is based on what is going on in europe. the other day, charlie rose had the saudi president and his wife
8:57 am
on. charlie rose asked the saudi prince about what is happening in europe and the effects in the united states. his comment was because of the bickering between the republican house and president, the united states has become irrelevant in europe and more or less in the rest of the world all because of the politics and the bickering between the republican house and president. guest: well, i think it is an over-stretched to say that the united states has become irrelevant to the rest of the world. there is a global economy and significant connections between europe and the united states. the new prime minister of italy was here meeting with members of congress yesterday about economic concerns in that
8:58 am
nation. there is still significant interconnection. with the new financial regulations that have been passed by congress, i think we are going to be seeing more financial-services move to europe and away from the united states. host: the house has passed a version of the stock. there are some pretty contentious issues. do you think there will be compromises? guest: i think there should be something passed. i voted for the bill in the senate. scott brown has been the leading light on this, moving this forward. it went through overwhelmingly in the senate. they need to get this done. host: "the washington post" has this story today. whether or not insider trading
8:59 am
have been. how prevalent do you think this is among members of congress, that they act on information that they get? guest: i saw the "60 minutes" story. everybody has to do financial disclosure. we do it every year. i have vanguard index funds. there are simple, and i do not trade. i do not think there was a lot of information i could of learned to trade on. it is not worth the risk. host: next up is daniel from youngstown, ohio. caller: why don't we just say that when congress passes a law, they are a citizen of the u.s. so they have to follow the law like everybody else? host: what is an example, daniel? daniel?
left
right

105 Views

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on